July 5, 1911

Mr. BRISTOW. I present an article written by ex-Oon­ · gressman Fleming, of Georgia, on the election of Senators by the people. I ask that the article be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

ELECTION OF SENATORS BY PEOPLE-SHALL A SECTIONAL BUGBEAR DEFEAT A NA'fIONAL DEMAND?

[By former Congressman William H. Fleming, Augusta, Ga.]

Under the United States Constitution, as drafted in 1787, the elec tion of Senators was vested in the State legislatures, with the accompany;ing power in the Federal Congress to alter these State regulations as t~ the time and manner of holding the elections, excepting only as to the place of choosing the Senators-the locality being left for each State alone to fix. .

In 1866 the Federal Congress exercised this power and prescribed the times and manner of elections of Senators by State legislatures and that law has been in force to the present day.

In recent years the Senate fell so much under the control of special interests and became so tmresponsive to public opinion, especially in framing 'tariff legislation, that an urgent demand arose for this body to be brought closer to the people and freed from the domination of machine politics. . . The method fixed upon for accomplishing this object (whether wise or unwise, need not be discussed now), was to take the election of Senators away from the State legislators and give it to the State voters at the polls.

After years of persistent battling, this reform movement gradually won its way under the special championship of - the Democratic Party. As was perfectly natural in this process of evolution, the Senators themselves held out longest against the popular demand. But finally these gentlemen t.nstiffened their necks, and on June 12, 1911, agreed by formal vote of 64 to 24 to submit their claims hereafter directly to the voters of their respective States.

The triumph of the cause of the people was complete--almost.

But at the critical juncture of framing the proposed constitutional of front. amendment a new issue was injected, one that had not been discussed before the people and one that formed no part of the popular .. demand for the direct election of Senators.

This new issue was the surrendering by the Federal Congress of its control, unquestioned since the foundation of the Government, over senatorial elections as to the time and manner of holding them.

The House joint resolution, passed early in the present session, was so drawn as to couple the popular election of Senators with the surrender of all preexisting Federal control over such elections.

When this house resolution came before the Senate on June 12, 1911, that body, by what is known as the Bristow amendment, changed the resolution so as to retain in the Federal Congress the power it had always possessed over the times and manner of holding elections for Senators, but voted in favor of direct election by the people.

The Bristow amendment conferred no new power on the Federal Congress ; it simply reasserted an old power.

The House refused to concur in the Senate amendment, and the resolution went to conference, where it now rests.

Some able speeches have been delivered · on this subject, notable among them being that of Senator BACON on February 10 and 27, 1911, when the Sutherland amendment, similar in effect to the Bristow amendment, was pending in the Senate.

It clearly appears from the discussions that the real ground of objection to the retention of its former power by Congress over the times and manner of holding elections for Senators is the fear of some of our Southern Congressmen that at some future day this power may be used to jeopardize white supremacy in the South.

Let us calmly consider the situation in a broad spirit of American citizenship.

What right in morals or in politics have we southern people to expect that Senators from Northern and Western States will yield up a Federal power over senatorial elections more than a century old in order to get enough southern votes to pass the constitutional amendment for direct election of Senators?

When did they ever make so one-sided a trade?

With what show of reason can we southern Democrats make our obedience to this popular demand and our loyalty to our specific platform pledge dependent upon the trading off by the North and West of a national power existing since 1787? No such condition was !orecasted in the campaign before the people.

Should not our southern Democratic Congressmen have some consideration for their northern and western Democratic brethren who will be compelled in the next election to attempt a defense before the people of a position which we must admit is indefensible from the standpoint of those sections? These northern and western Democratic candidates will be, on this particular issue, at the mercy of their opponents. The more the people study the subject the more they will be convinced that the northern and western Senators were right in not accepting the terms offered. The people will not forget that in the last campaign the sole issue upon this subject was the popular election of Senators and not the surrender of Federal power. . This question o~ th _ e Federal control or State control of senatorial elections is not entirely new-rn fact, 1t is quite old. It · was voted upon directly in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 .

In the draft of the Constitution, as reported by the general com· mittee on August 6, 1787, the provision relating to congressional elec · tions read as follows :

" The times, places, and manner of holding the elections of the Members of each House shall be prescribed by the legislature of each State, but their provisions concerning them may at any time be altered by the Legislature of the United States."

A motion was made on August 9, 1787, to amend by striking out the words " each House " and inserting the words " the House of Representatives," thus apparently eliminating Federal control over senatorial elections. I n the quaint but pointed language of the chronicler this motion " passed in the negative."

The tally sheet of the convention shows that only 1 State, namely . New Jersey, voted in favor of that amendment, while 10 States voted against it, namely, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia; not voting, Rhode Island and New York.

It thus appears that all the Southern States, as represented by the men of that day, saw no wisdom in making any distinction between Representatives and Senators as to Federal control of elections.

It is also significant that the _ single reservation o~ power to the States to fix the places of choosing Senators, as it now exists, was never separately discussed or voted upon in the open convention, but got into the Constitution only through the report of the committee on " revision of style and arrangement,” made on September 8, 1787, when the session was drawing to a close .

So it appears historically that the present position of southern pemocrats in demanding this surrender of Federal power as a cond1t10n to permitting popular elections of Senators i.s a most embarrassing one-­ and the embarrassment will continue to increase as the next congressional campaign proceeds . .

But again, as a question of political philosophy, our position would be equally assailable . It is rudimentary that every permanent national government should have final power of self-perpetuation, and not be dependent for its existence on independent agencies .

A majority of the States could, under the House resolution, without the Bristow amendment, " destroy the Government and dissolve the Union by simply declining to appoint Senators "-to employ an illustration used by John C. Calhoun in his Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States.

It is true, one side may ask, Why guard against such an improbability? But the ready answer of the other side is, Why surrender an existing power that prevents even the possibility of such a contingency'! Again, look at the discordant complications that might arise. Of course Congress, in either event, is to retain its power over eiections for Representatives. Now, if the State is to be given sole power ovee elections for Senators, we will have the unseemly spectacle of two elections proceeding before the same body of voters, perhaps, on the same day for Members of the same Congress, one for Members of the House, subject to Federal control, and the other for Members of the Senate, subject to State control. Where is the logic or philosophy for that difference?

If this proposed amendment to the Constitution, bringing the Senate in direct touch with the people, shall be finally rejected in the House on the plea now set up, there will be no escape for southern Representa· tives from the responsibility of defeating this great reform movement of which the Democratic Party has been the avowed champion. Think of how poor an excuse we will have to offer for such a complete change Some may doubt the wisdom of changing the election of Senators from the legislators to the voters at the polls, but this much can be safely said : That of all the new political remedies for existing evils this one carries with it the greatest possibility of good and the least probability of harm . It in no wise affects the political status of a State under the Constitution. It merely eliminates the le~islature as a sort of middle body or machine between the people and the Senate. State entity remains absolutely unimpaired so far as constitutional provisions can keep it so.

When three Republican Presidents-McKinley, Roosevelt, and Tafthavc braved party prejudice and exhibited a statesmanship Nation ­ wide in its scope, how can we southern Democrats afford to display a. narrow sectionalism that would sacrifice the national welfare to vague and vanishing fears of negro domination? We are the weaker section numerically and financially . Therefore, our safety must lie in breaking down sectionalism and appealing to the broad patriotism of the whole people.

l!"'or us to make the State control of senatorial elections a condition of permitting popular election of Senators would be bad in law and worse in politics . As a practical means of protection to the whites of the South, in the event we should ever need such protection, it would scarcely be worth a continental. ·

We have had white supr e :uiacy since we emerged from reconstruction, and we intend to hold on to it. Our people are united on that. The only real difference is that some of us believe that in the long reach of events the best way to preserve our racial supremacy is to treat the negro honestly as an American citizen under the Constitution, while, some others appear to prefer a less commendable method of procedure. Let us not act as if we were outside the Union. We are back in our " father's house " to stay. Let us show that the South is an integral, living, energizing part of our common country, ready in a generous spirit of patriotism to think and act for the common good.

Why should we permit this sectional bugbear of imperiled white supremacy to defeat this almost triumphant movement in behalf of the great masses of the people?

It is more like stating a truism than venturing a prophecy to say that the .American people, either now or in the near future, are going to force popular elections of Senators by the individual States. The only open question is, Whether they are going to elect enough Democrats to sur· render Federal control according to the House plan or elect enough Republicans to retain Federal contrnl according to the Senate plan 1 Who doubts which plan will succeed?

For a Nation with our history behind it to knowingly at this stage increase State power nt the expense of long-established Federal power would surely be a political anachronism. The controlling forces ate pulling in the opposite direction.

"The stars in their courses fought against Sisera." So will it be with southern Democracy when it undertakes to force the Nation to surrender to the States a power given it by the fathers in 1787.

Apparently, the wisest course for House Democrats to pursue would be to recede from their position and vote for the resolution as it came from the Senate. A great many of their constituents would indorse such a course .